Undoctrinate Yourself - #34 - Dr. Madhava Setty

Episode Date: March 12, 2025

Dr. Madhava Setty is a board certified anesthesiologist, electrical engineer, and author of the book Woke: An Anesthesiologist's View. Madhava's substack: https://madhavasetty.substack.com/Madhava's instagram: https://www.instagram.com/splinterinyourmindMadhava's Long Form Conversation with Paul Chek about 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGF5Su4aZVc&t=0sShorter conversation on 9/11 with Meryl Nass MD about the geopolitics of 9/11: :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD74blQy6msA brief essay on 9/11 with embedded video and links: https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/got-30-seconds-watch-this-video-whichA short commentary unite the 9/11 Truth and Medical Freedom movements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb0i49ei470Follow Alexis on Instagram: www.instagram.com/dralexisjazmynFollow Alexis on X: https://x.com/dralexisjazmynFollow the podcast: www.instagram.com/undoctrinateyourselfpod

Hello everyone. Welcome back to Undoctrinate Yourself. Today I'm sitting down with Dr. Madovasetti. He's a board certified anesthesiologist, electrical engineer and author of the book Woke and Anesthesiologist's view. I found him through Paul Checks podcast and was just completely blown away by his perspective and his logic and reason. He's just like a very powerful voice of reason in this kind of chaotic, biased society that we live in. So I was immediately, you know, I immediately wanted to invite him on the podcast because I think as we're trying to undoneuxed, we're indoctrinate ourselves. We really need to get a good view of epistemology and like what it actually means to be awake. And so that's why I'm really excited to have you on today, Madava. Thank you so much for coming. Well, it's a pleasure to be here with you, Alexis. Thank you for having me on your show. Yeah, it's going to be a really fun conversation. I mean, maybe we can just start by unpacking a little bit of your history and how you've cultivated the worldview and the perspective that you have, because I feel like it is pretty unique in this world that's so biased and materialist. And it's just an absolute gem to find somebody who is really looking at things for kind of how they are without

worrying about the potential ramifications for that, let's say. Yes, that would be a good place to start. As you mentioned, my training initially as an undergrad was in electrical engineering, and I spent six years working for the defense industry, the aerospace industry, before going into medicine. And I can talk for a long time about what I found in the applied science. sciences and the sort of attitude those around me had about what they were doing, basically I'll say that I was working with some of the most intelligent people around, yet they were so blind to the fact that we were building weapons of war. And, you know, they couldn't really reconcile it because they were more interested in the complexity

of the problem that they were tasked to solve. And they're, you know, these are extremely left-brained individuals. Let's put it that way. And so, you know, when people say smart people will never do the wrong thing, that's not true because we get caught up in what excites us. In any case, you know, my experience with that field took me all the way up to the North Pole in 1992 where we're doing some research for the Office of Naval Research. Basically, we're trying to track submarines under the ice cap.

It was a heady experience. I was only 25 years old, but it was when we broke camp, I had sort of a, a life-changing moment where I saw us burn all of our equipment and garbage in this pristine environment, just 100 miles from the North Pole. And I thought to myself, what are we, what am I doing up here? I understand what they're doing up here, but this is not my calling. And a couple of months of Later, I started taking classes so that I could apply to medical school, which I did two years later. And interestingly, I was always flummoxed by the medical profession and how medicine was taught to young aspiring doctors. And there was always this hubris around what they were doing. And as coming to it with some quantitative background, I was able to say, well, look, we're just taking guesses here.

You know, we don't really know if all we want to do is help. We just don't want to hurt. You know, that is the central axiom of medicine, right, is to do no harm. Compared to engineering, where you have to be very specific about your predictions and how things fit together, you know, going to like, say, the thousandth of an inch. In medicine, we just want to get the sign right. Are we helping or hurting? So, nevertheless, I nearly stepped back out of medicine to go into engineering again because

I thought, boy, we're just like we're playing with ideas here. You know, obviously medicine has done some amazing things. I'm not going to discount that fact. But we certainly have given it too much respect in terms of what it can and cannot do. I ended up going into anesthesiology as a last ditch effort to stay in medicine. And I knew nothing about it when I decided to become a resident in training for anesthesia. and I was happily doing what I was doing. I really enjoyed the field.

It's one of those few fields in medicine where we can really deliver on our promises that you are going to be asleep for the operation. And if you wake up with pain, we can take care of it, as opposed to a lot of medicine, which is, well, we're just going to treat chronic diseases and put band-aids on things. So I was very, very satisfied and happy with my career in anesthesia. But anesthesiology, in fact, I believe is the greatest, contribution of Western medicine to humanity. Sometimes people talk about vaccines or antibiotics as

being the greatest contribution of Western medicine. You know, there's undoubtedly some benefit from these medicines. But the major advantages of Western medicine is surgical. And none of these things would be possible without modern anesthesia. So I'll just start there. But what's What's interesting is that anesthesia itself is a mystery. It's one of the greatest mysteries of medicine because we don't know how a gas like ether works. So that was sort of in my mind as I went through a decade of taking care of people. It's like, wow, how come we don't know why these gases work? But it doesn't take a lot of introspection to realize that the reason why we haven't figured out how a gas like ether or a siebo-fluorane, this is a modern anesthetic,

the reason why we don't know how these things work is that our paradigm is wrong because the Western medicine paradigm dictates that physiology or molecules interacting with other molecules gives rise to awareness. But that is easily disproved because all you need is to do a thought experiment to figure out, you know, how that cannot be possible. So to put it simplistically, what I'll say is this. If you were to examine the situation that we have, what makes a human being awake and interactive? Well, we do brain scans or pet scans.

We figure out what parts of the brain and not your little toe, for example, are active because it makes sense that it's somewhere in the head, right? That makes us aware. Well, that would number one lead you to this possibility, which is whatever that is awake is in the head and not in your foot. So what's happening in the foot? Is that not you? That's just like material, but what makes you,

you is in your brain? Well, let's look at that more closely. And you will eventually find that you just have a bunch of neurons that are talking to each other, which can be broken down into molecular interactions at the nerve membranes that conduct electricity and you have, you know, sort of a cloud of electrical activity in your brain. But what part of that is, is aware. Well, if you keep going down further and further, you just end up with molecules. And does it make sense to you that, you know, awareness can be represented materially? It doesn't to me. Like, so we're saying that, you know, sodium ions are what we are. That's what makes us awake. It's not. And this is further proven by the fact that we have many,

many, many examples of how someone is clinically dead in the operating room, for example, but can we recount exactly what was done in the person's resuscitation? And they say, I saw the whole thing. Not only from my perspective, inside of my body, I saw it from above. I saw what you asked for. I saw that you, I heard that you asked for these things. And I saw you apply the paddles to my chest and shock me. So that would be a major. exception to the paradigm. Once you have an exception, that means your model is wrong, or it's incomplete to say the least. And we have many examples of this. Not only that, but it allows us to say, well, awareness is non-local. It's not localized to your body. And, you know, you follow the work

of Paul Chek. And, you know, he's a very gifted and skilled remote viewer where he takes his consciousness outside. And this is, again, technology that is out there, you know, exercised by our institutions of intelligence for many, many years. So right away, we're now left with the understanding that our entire paradigm is wrong. And this relates to my approach to the world in general. And with regards to consciousness and anesthesia, this is a fundamental problem that we have to consider openly. Because our basic fear as human beings is death. I mean, you know, we think about suffering and I'm afraid of not having enough money, but it comes down to death.

And if we are able to accept the fact that this existence, as we are perceiving it, is finite and will end with the death of our physical body, the fear of death can be used to manipulate us. And it's being done all the time right now, like threat after threat after threat. So the problem here for those who are creating these fear narratives is that if we woke up to the fact that, yeah, life is amazing and I don't want it to end, but it's not an absolute ending to my existence.

This is merely a, a challenge. chapter in what's probably an infinite book of my evolution. Now you have a population that is not as fearful. And once you have a fearless population, it's very difficult to control, ultimately. So as we go into more different kinds of narratives, we have to first of all understand And that very few things can be independently verified for ourselves. We are relying on third parties to tell us what's going on. You know when you have pain, you know when you have an emotion, no one's going to be able to talk you out of it.

But when it comes to what's happening in the world, this is something that we rely on other people to tell us what's going on. And as we are entering this very interesting era in human evolution and the Earth's evolution astrologically, if you want to put it that way or historically, we are now confronted with the reality that what we're being told is wrong. But there's so much confusion about what's really going on. And, you know, we talk about conspiracy theory or conspiracies. How do we know what's right and what's wrong? Well, there's, as I said, very little that we can say about our own personal experience, but we have to develop a greater understanding of the bigger picture. And

use that to validate or invalidate what we're being told. The problem is that the big picture is also very distorted. And that is essentially the purpose of my book, thank you for plugging it woke and anesthesiologist's view, is to talk about the world in a different way and to demonstrate that there's a much more cohesive way of describing what is happening on the planet right now that cannot be refuted.

And in fact, has much more validity, than what we're being told by legacy media, for example, or our institutions of science. So I'm just, you know, my hope is that as a scientist, an engineer, and a physician, I can offer something that has some basic validity to begin with, and I'm open to being challenged by all comers. So that's how I would set the whole thing up. I love that. I have so many threads I want to pull on there.

The first one maybe when you were talking about smart people doing bad things, because they're kind of in their niche or their silo. It really is making me think of, before we hopped on the recording, I was telling you about my mentor, Dr. Jack Cruz, and how we unpacked this history of, like, medical tyranny in our country and how even back in the forefathers' days, there was one of the forefathers, Benjamin Rush, basically said we need to put a clause in the Constitution

about medical tyranny to protect the people against that. And Jefferson and the rest, they looked back in history and they couldn't find an example of one that had happened, and so they didn't put it in. And now you see that's kind of the leverage point that's been largely used up through this day to manipulate and control the population. He also talks about the history of like the military pharmaceutical industrial complex and like emerging in the early 40s and how the siloing by of general groves of medicine and science

was the way that they used essentially to build the bomb to like in the Manhattan Project. They siloed everybody so nobody really knew what was going on fully. they each just had their own little tasks to complete, and that we see the remains of that to this day, where all of science is essentially siloed. Nobody's putting the pieces back together to look at the big picture and how that's really by design, which is just pretty mind-blowing.

I mean, especially when most people who are listening to this podcast and just normal people in the world, you only know whatever you were born into. And they're like, if it's normal, that's just, you know, what you're used to, but that doesn't mean that it's right or that it's good. So do you have any thoughts on that? something that came up for me when you were talking about, like this siloing and this like smart people being hijacked to do bad things, even maybe if they're unconscious of it.

Yeah, that's great observation. I think the Manhattan Project is a really great counter example to people saying, well, there couldn't be large conspiracies because somebody would speak up. And the reality is the Manhattan Project, as you refer to, is the effort to make the first atomic bomb. and that massive efforts was conducted outside the knowledge of Vice President Truman. He was briefed on it the morning after FDR died. So it is easily done. You can do something really massive and have no one understand what's going on. And so that's the first thing.

The second thing is the people who, are willing say to speak out and say that look there's something really nefarious going on their legitimacy is basically offered by mainstream media media are the ones are going to be the ultimate judge on whether this person is a legitimate whistleblower or is this person a crank that's looking for you know attention and all one has to see is that if the media is controlled then they control the whole thing. They control the way we think. They control our attention. And so it is very possible that what we've been told is wrong. And there could be huge conspiracy afoot without anyone saying anything. And you're right about good people doing the wrong thing. What I really, you know,

what's sad to me is, let's say, you know, we just came out of four years of COVID. And for some reason, we have, you know, a presidential election in two weeks, and nobody's talking about the greatest, you know, insult to our freedom over four years. Somehow that's all memory hold. It's like, oh, whatever, we're through it. Like, do you understand what happened? Like, you know, four years ago, we were all in our houses hoping that we could go outside again without masks in the future sometime. And it was never clear, like, when that would be. All of that is forgotten right now. But, you know, those of us who are, who can see clearly what COVID was all about, many of us will condemn physicians for being evil.

And that is not the case. I think there are some very, very, how shall I say, self-serving people high up in the establishment that knew that their big mistakes were being made and they were potentially being controlled or they were doing the controlling. But the vast majority of physicians were just following rules. That's what we do. The CDC says this. So that's the right thing to do.

It is a definite, it's a problem because these people you would think would be able to challenge the narrative. Some of us did. Most of us didn't. By us, I'm talking about physicians. But most of them thought they were doing the right thing. And, you know, I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to attend what's called the World Vaccine Congress in D.C. and there I was one of the few people who was a skeptic of the pandemic response and I had the opportunity to talk to the movers and shakers in the vaccine industry as someone who is part of the vaccine proponent sphere and they could not answer basic questions about what they were doing or of the published data about say vaccine trials. So they were just ignorant.

They weren't evil. They just were so ignorant about what was going on because they were caught up in groupthink. In an effort to get to herd immunity, they ended up succumbing to herd mentality. And so this is an important thing to consider as we try to bring clarity to the audience or to people here is that, yes, terrible things were done, like stupid things. But when you go after them like they're evil, that takes away. some of our power to change things. So I'll leave it at that. That's what I'll say about what you just said. Yeah, I love that insight. It's also making me think about how, you know, in the age at which the Manhattan Project happened, obviously our information age wasn't anywhere near where it is now.

And I'm thinking like according to astrology and other texts like in human design and other studies or ways of viewing the world, like we're really approaching this turning point societally. and in our evolution as a species, you could even say, where, you know, we can kind of no longer hide things to a certain extent. So it was easier to do that back in the day. But now everything is kind of coming to light with how connected we are online. Obviously, there's fact checkers and censorship happening to try to suppress information from being shared. But it's just going to pop up somewhere else because now, you know, we have X, for example, where we can talk about things that are maybe a little bit more controversial. And so I think we're really reaching this point where like all will kind of be revealed.

It's just a matter of time. And people are, and especially COVID, I think COVID really backfired. It was like kind of meant to control and like hold us down. But it ended up waking a lot of people up to the injustices, to the corruption that is in place within our centralized systems. And so much trust has now been lost in those systems that it was kind of, you know, they cut themselves off at the knees, so to speak. Yeah, that's exactly right.

I would say this, I agree with you that information is easily shared now, far more than it was just 20 years ago. But we also have the advent of AI and deep fake. And this makes it extremely difficult to understand what is and what isn't. This is why we have to first establish what is our overarching paradigm of how the world works first, and then see whether the evidence you're presented with fits into that or not. again, that's what I tried to do in a very, very short book, is like, look, this is a different way of looking at the world. And, you know, the Manhattan Project, interestingly, those physicists that knew what was going on implored Truman to warn the Japanese before deploying the first bomb on Hiroshima. And he didn't.

He chose to just, you know, blow up that city and kill, you know, hundreds of thousands of of Japanese. And then they pleaded with him to warn the Japanese that, you know, it's going to happen again. And what's interesting here is for some reason, and, you know, we don't have to go into this, but, you know, those physicists were not heated. And many of them, or I don't know how many of them, but at least a few, became extreme proponents of nonproliferation. And I had the opportunity to meet one of those physicists in the Manhattan Project when I was in college, Philip Morrison, was in fact a PhD candidate under Oppenheimer when he was a graduate student. And, you know, he was explained to us undergraduates, you know, how the bomb worked and what the basic technical

challenges were. And he became a massive proponent for nonproliferation and peace. And so, you know, I would imagine that a lot of these people who were instrumental in building this weapon of death had a, you know, a reassessment of life and morality. So again, these are good people that thought that they were doing the right thing for the right reasons, and then they saw it get out of hand. And their handiwork was used by very, very self-serving institutions, like the military industrial complex. And the same thing is happening

with the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And to be very clear here, you know, it's not so easy for the average person to understand the depth of the deception behind COVID, because you have to be able to really challenge datasets that are coming from institutions that are not to be trusted.

And it's one thing to accept them. Like if you go, you know, if you try to have a conversation with people who buy into institutionalized science, they'll say, oh, but the proof is right here, and they will link some data from the CDC. And the question is, why would you trust it? Well, they have to say, well, who else am I going to trust? And it's a problem. But in order to see the deception behind the data itself, you have to be pretty good with numbers and demonstrate that the numbers are fudged or the methodology in coming up with the numbers itself is flawed. And that's

where you start losing people because it's much easier just to trust people. And, you know, that's another way that the, you know, four or five hundred years ago when we had a scientific revolution where the papacy was being challenged by science, we now have a new religion called Scientism. And it is being followed like a doctrine. You know, it's like saying that we need to trust Fauci because he's all knowing and good is like saying we need to trust the Pope, never mind what all of the problems are. So COVID, I think you're right, woke up a lot of people to the fact that our institutions of science cannot be trusted, but it's hard to prove it to other people. But there are other conspiracies that are easily, easily shown to be true. And that is actually,

you know, what my main focus right now is it's around 9-11, because that is so easy to see. You just have to open up your idea that you could be lied to. And it is clear that what we were told about 9-11 is absolutely wrong. It is demonstrably false. And but, you know, the larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to even consider. Yeah. It's scary, right? Because, you know, that means the bigger the insult to us or the threat, the harder it is for us to see that it is fabricated, which means that they can continue to do worse and worse things and we will be less likely to challenge it because it would be so big. Yeah. And I mean, at some point it can become existential. It's like you're clinging on to this reality that's been kind of an illusion

because it feels like a life raft. And if you rip that out from under somebody, what is it going to be replaced with. Like, a lot of people are stuck in a kind of like a childlike mindset with the world, I would say, like this father-child interaction with like the government and with medicine. That is also, I would, I mean, I would hypothesize or suggest that that's by design as well. I mean, also when we look, I was talking about earlier before we started recording about my interest in light biology. And if you look at like the history of MK Ultra and their use of light to manipulate people and also animals and then how that's developed into our blue-lit screen technologies that's used to basically keep us like dopamine slaves constantly looking for

another hit of, you know, the technology to make us addicted to it to make us more compliant and more malleable to information that's being, you know, put towards us. I think it's really interesting to think about that. And I was also thinking about how, you know, light pollution, for example. Really, it didn't start until the early 1900s because we didn't even have a grid until like the late 1800s. And so with light pollution

comes this stripping away of the cosmos and the divine. Like we used to be able to go outside and just see this massive cosmos and understand and like appreciate our role in everything and have this sense of awe. And with light pollution at night, stripping that away,

I think it makes sense to me at least that that is directly relating to our spirituality and religiosity as a culture. And as a result, because we have these wiring, this like wiring diagram in our heads for religion or for belief systems, now we're putting it on to other things like science and medicine, for example, or politics or whatever it is. And I think it's just, it's misplaced. Like you mentioned, when you treat something like science, which is just an iterative process towards understanding reality as a religion, you're now no longer doing science. Yeah. Well said. Nothing to add to that. That was

exactly spun on. Yeah. So I think like you said, 9-11 is a really good entry point for people because there is so much evidence that you can point towards to say, hey, we're not being told the whole truth at the very least or maybe there's even bigger, more nefarious things at play here. So maybe we can get into that because I know that's something you talk a lot about and that you're involved with like helping to shed light on. Because if people can begin to at least, you know, question their beliefs in this area, is this massive portal into questioning everything essentially? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yes. Yeah, that's correct. Because, you know, the reason my 9-11 is so important is because it's, it is so obvious. And once you see how obvious it is, then you now change your, you know, filter by which you're looking at the world. Because if they could lie about that, they can lie about anything, anything. Because, you know, we literally watched with our own eyes, three buildings get demolished. Dustified, if you will, they disintegrated in Manhattan on a sunny Tuesday morning and nobody asked any questions about the basic fundamental principles that, you know, that reliably predict how things react to forces. And, you know, it doesn't take a physicist to understand that their explanation was wrong. And, you know, I, you know, it doesn't take a physicist to understand that their explanation was wrong. And, you know, I,

We could talk a lot about this. And I really first, I don't know where we're going to go with this 9-11 conversation, but it's difficult simply to talk about it without actually looking at references and videos and, you know, where you point these things out. And there's an enormous amount of data out there. I recommend everyone checking out the International Center for 9-11 Justice, where I'm acting as a science advisor to that organization. Or there's a tremendous amount of information compiled by.

architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth. There's thousands of structural engineers and architects that are asking for a reinvestigation. And, you know, they're asking nicely because this is something that we can do. But they all understand that those buildings were blown up. And those buildings could not have been blown up by terrorists from, you know, from wherever. There was clearly, at the very least, highly energetic military-grade explosives that were used to bring down those buildings. And once you understand that that must have been the way that they came down, you were now forced to answer why then were planes flown into the buildings,

at least the Twin Towers. And then you will see that those were decoys. This is a very, very disquieting thing to consider, you know, because terrorists wouldn't need planes and explosives. They would just need one or the other. only conspirators would need both. They would need the, you know, the explosives to actually destroy the buildings, and they would need the planes to act as a decoy.

So, you know, that's a good place to start. But, you know, once you see that that's what happened, now you can understand what is happening on the planet today. And, you know, but Alexis, where do you want to go with this? Do you want to talk more about 9-11 or do you want to talk about other things? because, you know, I'm always wary about talking about 9-11 without taking the time to talk about it thoroughly. Otherwise, everything I say will just be dismissed as, oh, that's just a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks he knows something about physics, wherein that is not the case at all. Yeah, so let me just stop there and you let me know where you want to go with this.

Yeah, so I think we can dive into it. Also, any links that you want me to include in the show notes for people to look at videos or even if you, I don't know if you have things teed up right away, but like I can include links to any videos and resources you think people need as like pieces of evidence to support the case that's being made here. I also want to maybe just interject and say that like if people think that this is crazy or whatever, like there's actually a precedent here. And if you look into like Operation Northwood, which we talked about also before we started recording, that was essentially a false flag that occurred on American soil. where Americans and military personnel were killed in order to incite essentially conflict with Cuba. And so there is precedent here. I mean, and again, if you start learning about this story, you can kind of go back in history and you can find other examples. I would argue including COVID that fall under this Operation Northwood's paradigm. And so I think we can absolutely dive into it if you're up for it or we can also pivot if you would rather talk about something else that's like pressing it on your mind. Let's see here Well I think it would be interesting to first

classify this kind of event Which is typically called a false flag event In other words The perpetrators of the event Which is a very real thing Are not who you think they are And this is a great way To mobilize an army

and interest in war. And war is a very terrible thing. And we have come to this understanding that, well, that's who we are. We're a belligerent bellicose species that are easily brought to conflict because that's who we are as people. You know, like, look, we're all sinners, right? Or, you know, whatever the, you know, predominant narrative you want to hold. Like, it all sort of makes sense.

like, oh, yeah, these people are horrible. These are, you know, bloodthirsty terrorists and they follow the edicts of, you know, irredeemable despots. Is that really the case? Or are most, if not all of these horrific events, orchestrated by people who like to make weapons? Do you really think that, you know,

Raytheon and, you know, Halliburton are interested in peace? Why would someone who makes bombs be interested in peace? They're interested in selling their product. Why would pharmaceutical companies who make trillions be interested in curing disease? Like, just, you know, just stop for a second and think about that. You know, like, do you really think that the CEO of Pfizer, if he showed up that his board of medicine, board of directors, meeting and said, oh, you know, I had this crack team working on diabetes and they've cured it.

And, you know, someone has to take this medicine for four days and they no longer have diabetes. That guy wouldn't have a job the next day. That does not fit into their model at all, right? Intentance dictate outcomes. Yes. And, you know, like, look, we should all be able to agree that primarily their job is, you know, to make money for their shareholders. It's a for-profit industry. What is the best way of making profit? Do you cure diseases? No. Do you kill everybody?

No, because then you've lost your consumer. The best way, obviously, would be to make sure that there's a chronic disease epidemic on the planet so you can sell your band-aids. That would, that's, you know, regardless of what you think, that is the model that should emerge from the way the thing is set up. Those are the, you know, the first principles. And so the same goes for war. Or, you know, free energy, for example. Like, why would people who, you know, want to make tons of money on, let's say, fossil fuels or, you know, regenerate green energy, why would they want something like free energy, which I believe exists on the planet? Why would they want that to come out?

that would be absolutely irreconcilable for them in their model. So for some reason, though, we just tend to say that, oh, they would never do something like that because that would be so horrible. Why would they do things like that? No, that's the way the world works.

I mean, you know, we talk about 9-11 as a false flag. What about the Vietnam War? Does everyone understand that that was a false flag? We have Robert McNamara, who is the Secretary of Defense years later, saying, well, you know, that attack on the USS Maddox in the South China Sea, that didn't happen. But that was the event that caused, you know, literally a dozen years of like untold damage, not only 65,000 American deaths,

but millions of South Asians, Southeast Asians who died. And, you know, that's what we're capable of. So it is not so, it should not be so inconceivable to think that 9-11 itself was a false flag. And I'm worried that too many years have expired since that event. You know, you're, you know, you seem like a very young person to me, uh, comparatively. But, you know, there are just like the JFK assassination, there's not a whole lot of people who were adults back then who saw the duplicity in what we're being told and what was seen. 9-11, you know, we're starting to lose people, you know, you know, a lot of people in the 20s

and early 30s don't really remember 9-11 as being what it was. but for people my age, it was life-changing. A lot of people, a lot of adults now don't remember that you could jump on a plane. You could go up to the gate to welcome your people who are coming to visit. You didn't have to go through TSA and do all of these things. It was such a free-year-work. Take off your shoes, for example. You know, all of this is, it's bullshit.

And, you know, it's around, you know, the question is why are they doing? this. And as you approach the world in this way, you would have to say that the best way to keep people controlled is to keep them busy and to keep them distracted. And this is where you need to take a look at the monetary system itself. Yes. Right. So these are all really important topics that are available to the layperson to investigate because that's how the world works. That's the world is being driven by the central banking systems of the planet. And the central banking systems of the planet make the most when you have government deficit spending.

And government deficit spending is the greatest during calamities like war or pandemics. So it's all tied together. You cannot look at one thing individually or in an isolated way. You have to look at the whole thing, which is why it's a challenge. Yeah. I mean, that's something we've delved into on the podcast before, like, decentralized currency versus fiat currency and just the inherent flaw with our fiat system and how it's just inherently inflationary. Like, it's inherently devaluing actively. And we've gotten to the point now where you literally can't even have, you know, a normal nuclear family.

The mom and dad both have to work. The kid is now being conditioned by the school because nobody's at home like teaching and raising the child how they want. And that's, I would also argue by design. It's another way to another lever of control. If you get them really young, they're much easier to condition and to manipulate versus as an adult. And I think that's also very scary in some ways because, you know, people are like what to do about it. But I think cultivating awareness at the very least is key because then you can start to unravel some of that consciously in your life versus just kind of going on autopilot what everybody else is doing. And then you end up with the same outcomes to everybody else like the chronic disease burden and the mental health crisis.

that we're facing. There's just so much that's normal that doesn't have to be. Exactly. Yeah, well said. You know, look, I'm going to, I'm going to assume that your audience is totally on board with all of these things. Okay. Yeah, most of them will be. Yes. Yeah. And, you know, the danger here is that, you know, my intention is really to change, you know, humanity in what little way I can. And that is going to require us reaching the other side. Yes. And I'm always fearful that, you know, when I start, you know, pontificating, that it's going to be a gish gallop of all kinds of things that is not easily shareable because I always

want to create content that can be shared by your audience to someone who is on the fence or is dismissive of conspiracy theories. So I'm going to put that out there first. And, you know, as we're having a conversation, it's very difficult to sort of, you know, reference things. But I would suggest looking at what the central banks of the world have said is their goal. They make it right there out in the open. Their goal is a two to two and a half percent inflation rate is ideal. What does that mean?

Ask yourself what that means. You know, inflation is better thought of as currency devaluation. Why do they want there to be a year over a year, 2% loss of the value of the money you have? You have to ask yourself why that would be. And you can refer to all kinds of economists that sort of agree with that opinion. But what they're really saying is that as long as you have a low-level inflationary rate, or devaluation of your currency, there is going to be an incentive to buy now rather than later.

If there's an incentive to buy now, that means you need to take a loan. And when you take a loan, that is going to create, like you said, out of fiat currency, more money in the system. More money in the system drives inflation. So what we have here, this 2% inflation rate is really a treadmill that we're on that has a grade upward that you have to climb.

And it's getting, you know, over time, you don't see it over five or 10 years. But what you said was very, very appropriate, which is, you know, when I was 20, you didn't have to get a graduate education and live with your parents. for five years to save for a down payment to buy your first house. That's what you're doing right now. I mean, buying things is so much harder. Why is that? We're working way harder than we had to 50 years ago. That should be the evidence that this system is designed to keep us busy and working and

laboring. So, and, you know, that's something that is irrefutable. And actually, Bobby Kennedy talks about this quite a bit. I went and saw him speak a few times and really resonated with the fact that like nobody in my generation essentially is buying homes because it's too expensive. Interest rates are too high and we literally just don't have the cash to like give good down payments. And if you look at that, like that is causing severe issues within communities because if you're just renting and you don't know how long you're going to be there, you're not going to spend the time investing into cultivating a community that you actually enjoy that's fruitful that is a nice place to be. Instead, you know, you're kind of up in the air about like, you know, maybe I won't even be here next year, so why bother? Plus, add the fact that like everybody's connected online versus in person. Now we're letting our actual physical communities kind of wither away while we're developing these like digital communities, which could be gone within an instant.

Let's say there was a massive solar flare and the entire grid went down. Like, you actually need the people that are directly around you in order to get through that. but we're not spending the time cultivating those connections. And I think we're really losing out on something special there. It's also very necessary. Like, flesh and blood communication is just completely different. Like, I would love if we're doing this podcast in person. And we should probably make that happen in the future because I think it's just totally different,

the type of energy that's present. And so many people are missing out on that. And then, of course, it's just spilling out into, you know, crime rates and dissatisfaction. And, you know, people just not being content and not, enjoying their lives. And again, I think this is also, you know, it's kind of baked into our system to a certain extent. Yeah, it is.

Yeah, not only could, you know, our community get destroyed with a solar flare, but when we bring our connections into the cyber space, we also are prone to be shoehorned into a way of thinking. And that hyper-polarizes us. And especially during COVID, for example, like when we were all inside and we were just sort of sticking to, you know, our communities online. And it was, you know, almost impossible to have a conversation with your neighbor. Like, you know, I own a house. I live in a house. I live in a very beautiful, and I would say rather affluent neighborhood. But I almost never have a conversation with my neighbors. I really, it's, it's really sad. And that's not the way it was when I was growing up. Yep. And this also makes it very difficult for us to cultivate skills

to communicate with someone who doesn't agree with us. Because we're so used to being surrounded by people who are in our echo chamber. So we've lost that ability to see the other person's position. And that makes us vulnerable to, group think. And, you know, I'm pretty certain this is also by design. Yeah, I mean, it makes sense. And it's kind of diabolical when you consider that. Like a part of it, I'm sure is, I mean, I don't know if I'm sure, but I would imagine part of it is ignorance and just following incentives and being blinded to other possibilities or perspectives. Like, for example, we're talking about earlier, the doctors during COVID and in general, like they think they're doing good.

And so that's what they're doing. They're just not questioning the narratives or not questioning what they're being told because they just, you know, they don't want to stand out. And actually, Nicole Shanahan, she put on this council of the canceled a few weeks ago on Twitter. And it was brought up in that conversation that doctors are actually typically the type that will fall in line, that will listen to instructions because in order to get into med school and be successful, you have to have that kind of personality. And so it makes complete sense when you then look at the pandemic and the response to that within the medical community. that there was this lack of people actually standing up for truth and what was right and instead just falling in line and being actually willing to do harm to avoid harming their reputation, let's say. Yeah. Yes. Oh, boy, there's a lot of problems with medicine in that way. And it's changed for the worst. You know, 30 years ago, when I was in medical school, there was this new thing called evidence-based medicine. And, you know, that sounds great.

Like, we want to make our guidelines and choices based on evidence. And it had a couple of bad effects. The first was, and the biggest, you know, deleterious effect of this was that it came upon our medical institutions to gather large amounts of data. And the way they had to do this was that they had to, you know, they had to compute. utilize things. So now, you know, used to go to see your doctor and you would just have a conversation and they would write a few notes about, you know, your medical history and, you know, why they came to see, why you came to see them. And everything was in paper. And it would spend, they would spend their whole time looking at you. Now, as you know, you go to see a doctor and they're on their computer

the whole time because they're inputting data into a vast database that can be accessed and mined for signals. What has happened? Well, first of all, you know, you've lost that human contact with doctors. Secondly, once you have very large bodies of data, let's say, you can prove almost anything you want to using, you know, whatever biased methodologies you want to, to show yourself something. And what has happened then is that doctors now are second-guessing their own experience because they're being told that, oh, no, the evidence says this. So whatever you're seeing, oh, it's purely anecdotal. But anecdotes is what used to drive medicine. Yes. It was the anecdotes when offered in enough volume would drive a reflection of the medical system to say, oh, my gosh, we must be doing

something wrong. There could be something wrong with this medicine we're giving. There must be something wrong with what we're doing because, you know, all of these doctors are reporting that there's been harm. But now doctors are second-guessing what they're seeing. It's like, oh, well, obviously, I can't explain what's happened to you, but we know it's not the vaccine. Yeah. Right. So this is what's very scary, is that doctors now are just going with what's being told as opposed to what they're seeing. And this is a massive problem. And, you know, COVID is something that is exposing this. We have to be aware of how it works in order to understand that, yes, it's not an infallible

system. Evidence-based medicine is not an infallible thing. It can actually be very fallible. And, you know, as physicians, we've tended to lost our, the art of medicine, which is the feeling and seeing and, you know, the gumption that was required back then is no longer needed. We have studies we can get and we can, you know, we can get MRIs and echocardiograms. But, you know, 50 years ago, you didn't have those things. And you would have to do a, you know, a diligent examination, a diligent physical examination, really listen to someone's heart and make some guesses.

And the clinical acumen of physicians back then were much greater than they are now. Yeah. I mean, something I think quite a bit about is how we like loud ourselves for having all this innovation. in medicine and science. And yet most of our innovation is literally to deal with problems we created through our ignorance and our use of technology

and our detachment from nature. And I also think, you know, the evidence-based label never really sat right with me because, like you said, in a doctor's office, that's an end of one setting. Like, you want the doctor

to be able to understand what's wrong with you, not what's wrong with a population on average. Because if you're looking at averages in science and like translational science, you may lose, you're losing a lot of it. information about the individuals within that group because you're averaging everything together

and you're looking at the average response, but the average response may not apply to any one individual within the group. And now we're just like sticking that label onto people or that, you know, kind of putting them in a bucket that may not actually be for them. And then at the same time, we'll like gaslight people for, you know, their response to drugs or vaccines, tell them that it must be, you know, something else. And especially with like the vaccine immunity act that came out in the late 80s. This is like, it's so clear that there's something wrong here. Like, if you have a negative response to a vaccine and you can't sue the company, like they're just completely immune, like, what is going on here? Why are they protected? And at the same time, if you look at the rigor that

goes into studying vaccine safety and efficacy, it's so much less than like every other type of pharmaceutical drug on the market. And so it just seems absolutely crazy. Combine that with the fact that we're, you know, giving kids within the first 18 months, like dozens of vaccines at the same a lot of them within the same time or within a very short period of time, it's just, it makes no sense, it's absolutely insane, but at the same time,

if you bring up these topics, you get censored on, you know, Facebook or Instagram, you get written off as a conspiracy theorist. And, but what I will say is that's why I'm actually glad that I have the credentials that I do have, because when I speak about these things,

I feel like people do at least take a beat and think, like, person. And I'm sure it's the same with you. You have a lot of credentials too. And you think about things very carefully and you word things in a very logical way. And I feel like that also makes people just stop and think for a moment. And in that pause, there's an immense amount of like transformation that can happen. Yes. Yes. Thank you for what you're doing. And, you know, thank you for this podcast. And it's really wonderful to speak to someone who has some credentials to see it that way and to have conversation because, you know, it's not easy to find people like that. And yes, you know, there are,

I know you've probably encountered people like this, but even as a physician talking to people on social media or, you know, commenting, it didn't matter that I was a doctor. It didn't matter that I've been practiced for 20 years. It didn't matter that I had, you know, experienced in applied sciences. Nothing mattered because if you said something that went against a narrative, you were like, like you said, an anti-vaxxer, or you were a pseudoscientist, and they attacked you relentlessly. You know, I don't know how many threats that were taken against me. Like, oh, we're going to, you know, call up the Board of Medicine to tell people that you're... Luckily, that didn't happen.

It has happened to some of my dear friends who have been speaking up, and, you know, they were consummate physicians who no longer can practice medicine. So those people who just respond, you know, knee-jerk, you might. must be crazy, I don't think you can reach them. They're indoctrinated. But the reality is, is that, you know, I always approach it like this. I'm not trying to convince the person I'm arguing with that they're wrong. I want all the people who are witnessing this exchange to realize I have a better argument. Those are the people who you can sway, not the person who's attacking you. It's the person who says, God, what a jerk that guy is talking to this doctor. I mean,

maybe he's not right, but that guy's a real jerk. That's, so we have to comport ourselves better, which takes a tremendous amount of tolerance and quite honestly compassion to say, look, I get it. You don't know what you're talking about, okay? So you're allowed to yell at me because you're coming at it from a place that is wrong. So I forgive you. And, you know, forgiveness is going to be a big part of this. If we really want to change the course of humanity,

we have to be able to access our compassion and our heart. And otherwise, we're just going to be continually at battle. But the scary thing is, when you start challenging these big narratives, it's now being shown to the public as dangerous, misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. And I advise all of your listeners to go to the Department of Homeland Security and look up the definition of what disinformation, misinformation, misinformation, and malinformation is. Very, very important. So these have been

sort of codified in our own DHS. And, you know, disinformation, is stuff that's not factual that is being purposefully spread for harmful reasons. Misinformation is something that's non-factual that is not being spread for nefarious purposes. Mal information is true, but is not contextualized properly. Now, the first thing I want to say is that nowhere do they define what is true and what isn't. They're just saying that that's what it is and it's being regarded as a domestic terrorist activity. This should be super, super scary to us. This is exactly what's been going on.

And, you know, look, I don't want to get political here, but this happened under the, you know, the current administration in the beginning of 2022. So my point here is that these kinds of discussions, like as we, you know, try to have an open, and good faith dialogue, it's being twisted into, we have to stop these people from being able to say what they're saying. And this is an attack, obviously, on the First Amendment. And despite what some of our politicians are saying, there is no limitation on what you can say, you know, whether that be, whatever, you can say whatever you want to. That's this country. And as soon as you take away that, or at least try to erode that possibility

all bets are off now. We're not living in a democracy anymore. I suggest that we're not right now, but we have to be extremely careful about what's going on as we speak, because once you take that away, we are now taking the very first step towards fascism. And I would suggest that if you want to create a totalitarian world, which I believe, you know, there are forces out there that are trying to create that,

you would have to go after the United States of America first, right? Because that is the stalwart democracy on the planet, the model for all others. What do you have to do? Well, the first thing you have to do is get the public to ask for self-surveillance. That was done extremely well after 9-11. I would suggest that that was probably the main reason behind 9-11, besides the, you know, trillions of dollars that were spent on the on making war, we succumbed and we allowed our government to say, oh, yeah, well, you should be able to, you know, monitor private conversations for our own safety.

Now you have someone knowing what we're talking about. The next step would be to make the public ask for censorship. That, I believe, was the main goal of COVID, because now you have, you know, all of these people saying, well, we have to stop the people who are talking about, you know, and anti-ta-vax bullshit. We have to quiet them. We have to be very careful about what this is, what this means. First, you, you survey the public and then you take away the right to freely express themselves. We are on an extremely slippery slope, which is why conversations like this are really important, because this is not just merely a, let's talk about this and let's talk

about that and you have mistakes were made. We're in a very, very untenable situation right now, And if we don't wake up to what's going on, we're screwed. And there's no one going to save us but us. And we have to protect each other's right to say what we want to. I welcome people to attack me and say, like, you're wrong, Dr. Setti, you know, and I'm going to, bring me on your podcast and make fun of me. I would love that. Of course, they won't do that.

So take heed, everybody. This is a very, very big thing that's going on right now. and, you know, what's the next thing that we need to do? Well, I would suggest that you have to take away the population's idea that they can stand up for themselves. This, I believe. Second Amendment. Yes. Yeah.

And let's be very real here. Like, you know, whether you have, you know, a Glock like Vice President Harris does, or a pistol, or and whatever they're called, AR-15, that's no match for the U.S. government. Let's be real. Like, really are you going to get your friends together and they come over with their shotguns to protect you? No, you can't. So why the attack on the Second Amendment?

It's because when you're armed, you feel like you can fight back. It doesn't matter if you can or not. They want to take away our ability to feel like we can defend ourselves. That's extremely important. And that's what I believe is behind this move to restrict gun ownership. I don't own a gun. I could never take someone's life. I just can't do it.

I would rather succumb to whatever's going on. I don't want to get into like, you know, what ifs. But I welcome the fact that my neighbors have guns if they want to own them and if they're willing to use them. But that's what's going on. And if you have a better counter argument, I'm ready to hear it. But I haven't heard one yet. Yeah, and I mean, I laughed when Kamala was saying about the gun that she has or whatever, like, she doesn't want to get rid of the Second Amendment, like she has a gun and Sam Wals has a gun. Let's all be clear here. It's always going to be rules for thee and not for me. They're going to keep their guns while everybody else gets their guns taken away. So that's completely irrelevant. And then with regards to the First Amendment, you know, John Kerry was on some panel at the W.E.F just a few weeks ago saying, like, the First Amendment stands in our way of ruling the people. We need to be able to effectively rule in a democracy. And we need to essentially say get rid of the First Amendment, which is just absolutely crazy. And they're literally telling you exactly

what their plans are and what they want. Yes. People are still somehow being like willfully deaf and blind to it, which is also pretty scary. Yes, that's a, that's extremely scary. And you bring up something very interesting there, which is that they're telling us what they're going to do. And this, I believe, is approaching the, the boundary with metaphysics in the sense that I think, you know, I believe in karma and I believe that, you know, if you're going to inflict all of this horrific stuff on free sentient beings, there is going to be payback. And I believe that it would be deflected if the people that you are controlling accede to it. And the acceding comes in the form of, oh, well, we told them, we told them what we're going to. they're going to do. And they wanted to do it. So, you know, don't blame me. They said they wanted this.

They said they wanted censorship. They said they wanted, you know, restrictions of gun ownership and free speech. That's what they wanted. We told them that that's what we're going to do out in the open and they voted for it. You see what I'm saying? Yeah. So, you know, so it's not simply a cabal that is looking to make a lot of money. You know, this goes very, very, very deep into, you know, who we are as a species and as conscious beings and how, you know, it's almost an ontological examination, like what is reality? How does this work? And, you know, there is a role for all of these discussions as well. And, you know, what really scares me, Alexis, is that during COVID, for example, all of the centers for what I would consider to

be non-conventional thinking, like the Eselon institutes and, you know, Omega and Kropaloo and Blue Spirit and all of these sort of centers around the world that used to bring together non-conventional thinkers, they all succumbed to the narrative. They all said, oh, yeah, well, you know, we have to impose vaccine restrictions in order to get in or, you know, masking. there was no concerted effort to resist this effort to control us. And, you know, I'm in dialogue with people who I would consider thought leaders. And they all think that I'm nuts. And these are people who are supposed to be, you know, spiritual leaders and purveyors of information

that goes beyond the physical to the metaphysical. And they can't see that they're being controlled. Wow. So we have to be, you know, this is another, you know, another thread to pull on is like, why are they succumbing? Why are they just falling in line? Of all people, I can understand, you know, the doctor who wants to follow CDC guidelines. But why are these people who are supposed to be in touch with their chakras, not see that, you know, the fundamental, one of the fundamental aspects of reality is freedom. You know, consciousness is inherently free.

And don't you see that this is a restriction that's being imposed upon us? So we are at a tough crossroads right now. Yeah, I feel like almost the, even those free-minded spiritual leaders being like succumbing to this as well is almost like a message to each of us that we literally can't look to anybody but ourselves and our own reason and our own spiritual beliefs even to navigate through this because we listening to anybody else like everybody has their. flaws. We can only know what's right and true for ourselves, right? So like following that compass and getting in touch with that is probably the way forward. You know, I always tell everybody, like, not to trust me. Don't like put your trust on me. I want you to take responsibility for yourself. I'm just here to try to equip you with the knowledge and tools that you can use to do that a bit more successfully and a bit more effortlessly. Exactly. Yes. We can only give people

tools. Look, the way it works is, you know, I'm not asking anyone to trust me or believe me. I'm saying there's a way of looking at this differently. And once you do that yourself, then you'll see that my position or your position, our position is far more valid than what you're being told. But you have to make the effort first. I would say, you know, this is another, you know, big puzzle that we encounter is what do you do when experts disagree? Yeah. Right? I don't know.

You know, I've talked a lot about this, but that's the position that we're all in. where we have experts on one side saying one thing and experts on the other side saying the other thing. How do you as a non-expert decide which one is right? If you were being truly honest, you would have to say, I don't know. I don't know who's right. But why is one side asking to debate and the other side saying, no, we don't want to have debate? Why is one side, you know, wanting to engage? But the other side is saying, no, I'm not, that would be dangerous because you might get the wrong idea.

I mean, these are like really big clues, not to who's right or wrong, but what is fundamentally happening here? Because you don't know as a non-expert who is right. You should be able to, you know, so your choice to go with one or the other is based on what? What? It's based on, you know, your conditioning. Yep. And what is that based on? You know, there's no hard place to say, well, this is how I know it's true.

you're just going on thought forms and biases. And if you really want to get to the bottom of things, you have to address your biases first. Why do you expect that, you know, an industry that has paid out billions of dollars and fines for harms done? Why do you trust them now to do the right thing? I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I'm just saying, do you realize that that's the case?

You have to avail yourself of all the information possible before choosing. So, you know, for non-experts, this is where you have to go. But if you don't want to do that, go ahead and trust whoever you want to. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that, but understand why you're making that decision before you make the decision. And stop telling me that you're being objective because you're not. Yeah, it's pretty crazy that we could all agree that every pharmaceutical drug ever made has side effects and issues with it that some people will experience except the COVID

vaccines. Like, they're just the first perfect, you know, pharmaceutical product ever created that causes no harm. And it's just all good. And we, we are now actively seeing that begin to fall apart because, of course, people are suffering and people are dropping dead in their, you know, midlife from diseases and turbo-cannibalry cardiovascular events that are just completely, you know, unheard of before this period of time. So I think we are seeing that play out. I was also thinking with regards to, like, experts on two sides of the playing field, because of the, you know, I often and very frequently encounter this as somebody who is very focused on like light research and the benefits of the sun on our biology.

And of course, the mainstream is like literally the sun is bad. You must block it. You must wear sunscreen. You must wear sunglasses. All the glasses and contact lenses for the most part are UV blocking. It's like UV light is bad. It's going to cause cancer. End of story.

But then even if you look at the centralized literature on the topic, you'll see there's a whole risk benefit analysis to be had here. And there's actually way more on the. side of benefit than the side of risk. So like if we look at the benefits of regular chronic daily sun exposure, we see reduced cardiovascular mortality, reduced rates of diabetes and obesity, autoimmune diseases, multiple cancer types, including melanoma, which nobody talks about. Everybody's like, oh, UV light causes skin cancer. There's only a case for that in like squamous and basal cell carcinomas somewhat. But if you look at the melanoma research, it literally says chronic, daily,

regular sun exposure and sufficient vitamin D status is protective against melanoma incidents and mortality. They're literally banking on people not actually looking at the actual published results. And it's honestly shocking in some ways that they'd even let this stuff get published. But there's a whole corpus of literature showing all these benefits to sun exposure. And yet the experts on one side of the playing field cherry pick their data in order to make a case versus looking at the totality of the data and looking at the risk benefit of everything because everything will have a risk benefit. You're sacrificing one thing to maybe get more of a benefit, and then that would make sense to do that. We're not being honest about that risk benefit in so many different areas within science and within medicine. Yeah, well said.

I'm not familiar with the research about skin cancers. There's so much. I bet you there are, and I don't want to speak on things I don't know about. But you know, you said some very interesting things there. The first part being cherry picking data or studies. People don't understand that you're being given cherry-picked up all the time. And so in order to understand that that's what's happening is you have to go look, like you said. I can say something about EMF, for example.

Great. Go look. Go and look at how the FCC determines what is safe. If you go and look, they'll refer you to the FDA. And if you go to the FDA to say, how do they determine what is safe? is a safe level of electromagnetic radiation. Here I'm talking about, you know, cellular phones and Wi-Fi and all this stuff.

They will refer you to studies that they're using that demonstrate that radiation in the 3G spectrum causes cancer in rodents. Yes. They use that. It's there. It's right there in the open. And, you know, for your audience,

3G is a larger wavelength than 5G, which means it's less energetic. We can assume that the greater amount of energy in the EMF, the greater the tumor potential. So they're telling you, you have to go and look, it's there. And, you know, there have been hundreds, hundreds of published data analyses showing that millimeter or longer long radiation is extremely detrimental to us. It doesn't have to be non-ionizing. So it's all out there. Now, before we go on or end, whatever we want to do,

you said a couple of things there that I want to make sure that the skeptical audience out there is aware of a couple of things, because the first thing was vaccines having deleterious effects. The counterposition is, oh, yeah, but they've saved millions of lives. So, you know, we can deal with some harm. We're not saying there's no harm, but it's saved, you know, it's totally on the side of good. Really? How do you know that? Because the CDC says that. Have you looked at the methodology by which the CDC calculates vaccine efficacy or effectiveness? Have you looked at the way they come up with that number? And it's flawed. And I've been in contact with the CDC asking them to correct it and they won't. And, you know, the thing I'm talking about here is that, they don't look at outcomes within 14 days of getting vaccinated. So if you get COVID, let's, for example, or you die within 14 days of getting your second dose, you're no longer, you're no longer counted as a vaccine injury or a vaccine bad outcome.

And that has tremendous effects on how the efficacy of the vaccine is presented to you because they're, they're, they're biasing it towards safety. Yes. So you have to look at that. Moreover, the other thing you said was, oh yeah, so turbo cancans and sudden deaths, the argument there that will come back is like, oh, well, there's young people have always died at that age. We just haven't been, you know, looking for it. Well, look, I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that. But what is the explanation for it? And the explanation for it is, oh, well, it's probably long COVID. That's why people are getting, you know, turbo cancers. and that's why people are, you know, dying on the soccer fields. It could be, but how can you possibly rule out the vaccine? Because all of these things started in 2021, the same year that the vaccine rolled out. It would be absurd to be able to exclude that as a possibility.

If you're being truly objective, you would have to say that you can't rule out the vaccine as being the causative agent there. It's a correlation. And stop with this, you know, correlation does not equal causation. Does everybody understand that a vaccine trial does not prove causation? It's only proving correlation. In other words, you give the vaccine to some people, you don't give it to the other people and the outcomes are different.

That's not causation. That's correlation. We also lost our control group in the COVID vaccine because they said it was like, whatever, like inhumane to deprive people of this vaccine. So the control group got it. Correct. And, you know, again, that's another false argument that's given by vaccine proponents. You know, if you go back and try to find out,

where the original trials came from. None of the trials, even the polio vaccine in the 50s, it did not use a saline placebo. Of course, there's a placebo mentioned in all the studies, but the placebo is not saline. It has, it's either another vaccine or it has the adjuvants that are in the vaccine formulation, which is obviously the cause of the detrimental effects. So you're going to hide bad effects by not using a saline placebo. You have to, go and look. So the entire idea that there is, you know, no detriment to giving vaccines is based on a lie. You know, there's an excellent book called Turtles All the Way Down. I recommend everybody to read that because it is an incredible examination into the history of vaccines and debunks

all of these ideas that, oh, my gosh, if it wasn't for the vaccines, we'd be, you know, dying by the droves. Most of those deaths had leveled out. because of sanitation. They really have been. And, you know, the flattening out happened well after the vaccines rolled out. And, you know, I always enjoy talking about things beyond science and, you know, the physics. But, you know, we're in a very interesting place right now astrologically. I don't know if you follow us.

Very. I do. I do. Yeah. So we have, we have, you know, Pluto coming back into Aquarius. And we know in the last time that happened, right, was that was in the last two decades of the 18th century. And that was a time where we had something very, very new on the planet, which is self-governance and freedom and democracy. You know, for millennia before, going back to the Greeks, it was all sort of, you know, autocracy. And we had this new experiment. And we had the American Revolution and we had the French Revolution.

The other thing that happened was that we had the introduction of vaccines. And now Pluto, you know, being sort of the advent of, you know, a re-understanding of what's going on, we are now challenging what democracy is again. Like, do we really have democracy? We're going after the First Amendment. How can we have democracy if some people, you know, we have, you know, Tim Wall saying, well, you know, misinformation is not protected under the First Amendment. of course it's protected on the First Amendment.

That's exactly what it's all about. And now we have people starting to understand that, these vaccines, are they really as safe as we thought they were? So it's happening. Whether or not you want to say it's due to Pluto or not, it's sort of a cycle that humanity is under, and we're back there again. And, you know, what's going to happen in the next five years

is going to be extremely interesting. And who knows? Yeah, I mean, especially in the sign of Aquarius, it's like the forward thinking, innovator like the like always looking for truth and it's always kind of moving in the forward direction so I think it's going to be really interesting to see how that develops are you familiar with human design at all no so it's a system that was channeled back in like 1987 by this guy who actually goes by the name of raw but like he died in 2011 ra uru who is what his like

reborn name was he had a different name before that but anyways he talks about in 2027 we're having this massive transition into a new epoch. And each epoch in human design is like 411 years long. So we've been in this same era for like 407 years or whatever. And in 2027, we're moving into a new one. And the epoch that we're currently in that we're wrapping up was called the cross of planning, which was all about centralized structures, exerting power, people conforming. And there was a community cross.

And we're moving in 27 into the cross of the Sleeping Phoenix is what it's called. It's an individual cross. It's almost selfish. It's very personal. It's very like each individual is for themselves. We're no longer in our tribal or community aspect. So anyway, I think it's really interesting to think about what that transition might look like.

And I do also see it kind of happening already. I think it's going to obviously be like more of a gradient than anything. But people are starting to wake up and kind of become their own authorities, slowly but surely. Yeah. Oh, that's, I completely agree with this guy's prediction. I mean, we're seeing it right now. I mean, it's not even just seeing it. Like we're, we are forced to realize that that's the predicament we're in because we can't trust anyone now.

I'm not saying you shouldn't trust anybody and everybody's lying, but you have to make sense of it yourself. And honestly, if that were not possible, if you really believe that that's impossible because I know, I don't know enough and there are experts that know more than me, then I'm sorry, then we're screwed. You have to be able to have that power. You can call it whatever you want. I call it intuition. That's sort of my, the foundation of what I present in the book is that we have that ability. And it is this ability that has to be cultivated. But in order for it to actually emerge, you have to get rid of all of its impediments,

which I believe are your biases. Once you get rid of your biases, you become an intuitive person. and things become apparent. And one of the biggest thing, and more often what becomes apparent is the fact that you're uncertain. And the uncertainty is actually the power to realize that you can be flexible in your position. And that's something that fear makes us eliminate that possibility. We don't like uncertainty when we're scared. So we have to be able to embrace the uncertainty.

But to what you were saying, Alexis, yes, I think that this age of Aquarius is about figuring it out for yourself. And this is where voices like yours and your podcasts like yours are very important because we are coming into this new age without the benefit of having our predecessors telling us how to do it. We are sort of set. We're the pioneers in this right now. It's like how do we make sense of all of these comprehensive? complicated issues. Well, get rid of your biases, sit down and meditate, take some deep breaths, get some sunshine, have a conversation that's not heated, and realize that nobody knows for sure, and start there. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, so many people aren't centered today. And again,

our technology foments that as well, because these harsh blue lights and our LED and fluorescent bulbs, all of this blue light that we're being bathed in is very stimulating to our sympathetic nervous system, it's also highly addicting to our brain. So we're like hyper focused on our tech and, you know, the world is kind of going on without us outside. But if everybody is in the tech, then it's like this is also where AI comes in and like artificial reality, augmented reality, where it's like, what even is reality? Like you could plug into the actual matrix, which is nature, or you could plug into the artificial matrix. But there's going to be ramifications to that because our biology requires specific inputs in order to actually thrive. But if you have drugs, I guess, to deal with

that, then, you know, it could work out for you. But, you know, I think we just really need to get back to basics. And that's why I also really like focusing on just like connection with nature and sunshine, because if you can just center yourself in those types of environments, then you can just start to see things more clearly. Like, you can see reality better because the more you're stuck on your tech in this like low grade sympathetic state all the time, it literally shuts off your peripheral vision. It shuts off your ability to think critically and think like in like a higher mind. and that is just like the worst possible thing for you if you're trying to cultivate an awareness of like what is the nature of reality like what should I believe like what are my biases if you're trying to have a critical thought in general we need to be focusing just building on building a foundation of health and we can't do that disconnected from nature we just can't it's just written into our genetic code and so I think you know people are starting to begin to push back and reconnect and just kind of go with what feels right because I think everybody feels better after a day. at the beach or, you know, just sitting in the sun in their backyard with their bare feet on

the earth. It just feels good because it's right for us as a species. And so it just comes back to really just kind of going with what your body is telling you to lean into and stop just listening to experts that are completely disembodied talking heads. And they're just creating more pain and suffering, essentially. Yeah. Fact. Yeah. I think this has been an amazing conversation. We could probably keep going and maybe we can just have you back on another time. because I would like to get into like the law of one with you and we can talk maybe more about we can maybe we can just do a nine 11 episode I think that would be really cool I know you've done them before and I can link to those in the show notes but if there's anything that you would want to discuss in the future just please reach out I'd love to have you on again and I think it's been a very fruitful conversation yeah really really great to know you in this short period thank you for what you're doing I'm so thankful for people like you that podcast that um you know bring on uh I would say legitimate voices in this So thank you for having me on Alexis. I would love to come back. I would love to talk about the Love One. Great. You know, to all the audience out there, you know, we've talked a lot about gloom and doom

and misdirection, but there is truth out there and there's beautiful, beautiful wisdom that's available to us. And yeah, I would like to go there sometime with you. Amazing. Sounds great. Thank you so much for joining me today, Madava, and I hope to talk to you again soon. Yeah, me too. See you later. Bye.